From silly to sacred, a priest speaks …

Archive for April, 2007

I have friends who are always sending me doctored photographs. Sometimes they are funny and often they are mean. I collect political buttons of this sort as well, from all the parties. I suppose they represent a kind of social commentary.

I have to be honest here and say that the radio show personality was terribly wrong to say what he did a few weeks ago about the young women athletes. However, the situation with poor Santa [above] did merit some sympathy from me. I always liked that jolly ol’ soul. Oh well, at least it is still the Easter season…maybe the whole controversy will quiet down by December? I hear he may even have a papal Motu Propio hidden in his sack.

I am beginning to feel sorry for Kerry. He lost the last election and people are still making fun of him. I guess the late Gerald Ford was one of the best sports when it came to photos and cartoons. He even saved them and was humble enough to laugh at himself, yes even when critics were mean. I think this picture is just mean, really NOT funny at all. What do you think?

As a boy I quite enjoyed politics and would watch the major political conventions from beginning to end. It was all a great show. Many of the politicians were first-class speakers, too. The issue of abortion and now the war on terror has soured much of this for me. It is hard to be entertained when the stakes are raised so high. Listening to the late Ronald Reagan was also a joy. I recall his radio spots on America and patriotism with great nostalgia. The late democrat governor Casey of Pennsylvania was also a good speaker, not always with style but with ideas about human life and the plight of the poor and the working man. My mother loved Humphrey. He always reminded me a little of a salesman by the way he talked. Nixon was not too bad but he always looked terrible and his upper lip would sweat gallons. People who listened to his debate with Kennedy on radio tended to said he won. A majority who watched on TV said it was Kennedy. Ross Perot was always good for a laugh…goodness, the country could use a good laugh now. Neither of the Bush presidents was a great speaker, although I think they are good men. Clinton had a few good speeches, but sometimes he talked too long and could bore you to tears. Bob Dole had that peculiar habit of talking about himself in the third person, “Bob Dole says…Bob Dole thinks…Bob Dole’s way….” I found it very odd, like he was looking at himself from the outside.

We supposedly fight for our security and for the freedom of people in new democracies. However, so many of our so-called allies in the WAR ON TERROR are really part of the problem. Take this breaking story from Pakistan:

04/27/2007 – PAKISTAN. Qaiser Felix (AsiaNews.it). A mob of Muslims tortured (with the intention of killing) a Catholic man on April 13 in Kotri, Sindh province, accusing him of writing blasphemous words against Muhammad. When the Police intervened, it arrested the tortured man. In prison he was tortured again in order to get him to “confess.” According to the All Pakistan Minorities Alliance (APMA), Sattar Masih, a 28-year-old Catholic man, was arrested by police despite the lack of evidence, put in jail and tortured to get his confession. He was supposed to get married the following day. His uncle was also arrested.

This whole business started because a Christian was framed and others jumped to the conclusion that he was guilty. Someone had left at the local mosque, Masih’s picture with words against Muhammad on the back. The imam showed the paper to worshippers and noted that it conveniently included Masih’s address. The mob rushed over to his home to torture and kill him.

“How could any sensible person write those words against the prophet and then leave name and photo, when he knows that punishment of such an act is death,” said APMA Chairman Shahbaz Bhatti.

This is the regular treatment that Christians regularly receive in Pakistan. Bhatti explains that “Often they are murdered in extra judicial killings or languish in prison for years. Victims’ families are forced out of their homes as a result of threats, harassment and a sense of insecurity.” Often the mobs take the law into their own hands, with no legal repercussions.

Was this on the evening news? Was this discussed on the talk shows? No, but we can take solace that Speers is in therapy (at least for a few minutes) and Baldwin is sorry for getting upset with his daughter.

Again I ask, what is wrong with us?

Is Islam really the religion of peace?

Are we dealing with Islamic extremists or the dominant face of Islam?

Where are all the cries for justice, from liberals and conservatives?

Wait, this man is not an American, so I guess he does not matter.

Too bad, sometimes it is hard not to be ashamed.

BOB (see comments) thinks that we need to re-image St. Joseph in a more manly way, as a model for Catholic men who just aren’t going “to sit down and take it anymore”. Maybe he was joking, but the idea touched my funny-bone, so here…

Upstate New York seems to be on everyone’s vacation wish list. This list of rules will be handed to each person entering the state. (Note: Vehicles from New Jersey , New York City and Connecticut will receive two copies.)

1. That slope-shouldered farm boy you are snickering at did more work before breakfast than you will do all week at the gym.

2. It’s called a “dirt road.” No matter how slowly you drive, you’re going to get dust on your BMW. I have a fourwheel drive because I need it. Now drive or get out of the way.

3. We all started hunting and fishing when we were nine years old. Yeah, we saw Bambi. We got over it.

4. Any references to “corn fed” when talking about our women will get your butt kicked by our women.

6. If that cell phone rings while a bunch of mallards are making their final approach, we will shoot it. You might hope you don’t have it up to your ear at the time!

7. No, there’s no “Vegetarian Special” on the menu. Order steak. Order it rare. Order a two pound lobster and steamers. Or, you can order the Chef’s Salad and pick off the two pounds of ham and turkey.

8. Yeah, we have sweet tea. It comes in a glass with two packets of sugar and a long spoon.

9. You bring Coke into my house, it better be brown, wet, and served over ice.

10. So you have a sixty-thousand dollar car. We’re real impressed. We have quarter-million dollar skidders to pull logs out of the woods.

11. Let’s get this straight. We have one stoplight in town. We stop when it’s red, and we may even stop when it’s yellow.

It seems that St. Augustine (354-430 AD) and some of the early fathers of the Church thought so and for this reason they mandated infant baptism. While they were not guilty of personal sin, they still suffered from the effects of unremitted original sin. St. Augustine’s opinions held sway at the Council of Carthage (418 AD) which rejected even a limbo existence or place of happiness for unbaptized children. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: “St. Augustine thought that unbaptized infants went to hell, although he conceded that, due to their lack of personal responsibility and guilt for original sin, the pains of hell were in some way diminished for them” (vol. 8, p. 590). St. Anselm (1033-1109) sided with St. Augustine on the matter of “positive suffering” in hell for unbaptized children. Origin challenged the notion. But the problem was Jesus commanded that unless we were born again of water and the Spirit we could have no part of him.

A sentiment for infant damnation has been revisited in some of the Protestant churches, especially those with a Calvinistic flavor. We recall that Thomas Hardy’s TESS in literature was turned down by an Anglican clergyman when she begged for her child to have a Christian burial. Similarly, the Puritan Johnathan Edwards in his fiery sermons and Sir Isaac Wattes’ in song declared that “the floor of hell is paved with the skulls of unbaptized children.”

After the fathers, as the Church continued her reflection on this matter, the scholastics detailed their own theory of a LIMBO PUERORUM. St. Thomas Aquinas (1226-1274) conjectured that this limbo was a middle state of perfect natural happiness; however, they would be deprived of the Beatific Vision. Italian Jansenists would return to St. Augustine’s view at the Synod of Pistola (1786) and argue as revealed doctrine that unbaptized children are damned to the eternal fires of hell. Pope Pius VI came out with Auctorem Fidei (1794) siding with the more moderate scholastics and condemned the view that unbaptized infants suffer hell fire.

Those of us who cherished and memorized our Baltimore Catechism, remember limbo, from the Latin “limbus” meaning hem or border, as a teaching that preserved the necessity of baptism while excluding unbaptized babies from the full severity of God’s justice, since they had committed no personal sin. The universal catechism today says nothing about limbo. Rather, it states: “As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: ‘Let the children come to me, do not hinder them’ (Mark 10:4), allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who haved died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism” [CCC 1261].

The subject of LIMBO is in the news with a new report from the Vatican’s International Theological Commission. Like so much else, it is being misreported. Various news organizations are saying that the Pope and the Vatican are officially nixing Limbo and yet the Holy Father is simply signing off with allowing the commission to publish its findings after years of investigation. Further, the commission does not totally close the door to the long-held theory, only that it is unlikely and seems an overly “restrictive view of salvation”. The commission contended that there are good reasons to hope that babies who die without the benefit of baptism (might) go to heaven.

In a document published April 20, the commission said the traditional concept of limbo — as a place where unbaptized infants spend eternity but without communion with God — seemed to reflect an “unduly restrictive view of salvation.”

The church continues to teach that, because of original sin, baptism is the ordinary way of salvation for all people and urges parents to baptize infants, the document said.

But there is greater theological awareness today that God is merciful and “wants all human beings to be saved,” it said. Grace has priority over sin, and the exclusion of innocent babies from heaven does not seem to reflect Christ’s special love for “the little ones,” it said.

“Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered … give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision,” the document said.

“We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge,” it added.

The document is not very large, only 41 pages and is entitled, THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTIZED. Thirty experts from around the world sit on the international commission. It only has an advisory role and such documents do not represent “authoritative” teaching that mandates assent.

The question is increasingly important given that more and more couples are laxed or dismissive of baptism and because of the holocaust of abortion. Limbo was never defined Church teaching but was a highly regarded theory taught in old catechisms. It is not in the official Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The CNS article states:

The Church’s hope for these infants’ salvation reflects a growing awareness of God’s mercy, the commission said. But the issue is not simple, because appreciation for divine mercy must be reconciled with fundamental Church teachings about original sin and about the necessity of baptism for salvation, it said.

The document traced the development of church thinking about the fate of unbaptized children, noting that there is “no explicit answer” from Scripture or tradition.

“God can…give the grace of baptism without the sacrament being conferred, and this fact should particularly be recalled when the conferring of baptism would be impossible,” it said.

In this and other situations, the need for the sacrament of baptism is not absolute and is secondary to God’s desire for the salvation of every person, it said.

This does not deny that all salvation comes through Christ and in some way through the Church, it said, but it requires a more careful understanding of how this may work.

How might unbaptized babies be united to Christ?

A “saving conformity to Christ in his own death” by infants who themselves suffer and die.

A solidarity with Christ among infant victims of violence, born and unborn, who like the holy innocents killed by King Herod are endangered by the “fear or selfishness of others.”

God may simply give the gift of salvation to unbaptized infants, corresponding to his sacramental gift of salvation to the baptized.

Later we read:

The findings of this report should not be used to “negate the necessity of baptism, nor to delay the conferral of the sacrament.”

“Rather, there are reasons to hope that God will save these infants precisely because it was not possible to do for them that what would have been most desirable — to baptize them in the faith of the church and incorporate them visibly into the body of Christ.”

“It must be clearly acknowledged that the church does not have sure knowledge about the salvation of unbaptized infants who die,” it said.

*************************

ORIGINAL SIN
Catholic Belief by J. Faa Di Bruno, D.D.

ORIGINAL sin is distinguished from actual, or personal, sin in this — that actual or personal sin is the sin which we personally with our own free will commit whilst original sin is that which our human nature committed with the will of Adam, in whom all our human nature was included, and with whom our human nature is united as a branch to a root, as a child to a parent, as men who partake with Adam the same nature which we have derived from him, and as members of the same human family of which Adam was the head. The difference between original and personal sin is that the latter is committed with our own personal will, whilst original sin was committed with the will of another, and only morally our own, because it forms with that other (Adam, who is our head) one moral body — humanity.

If our hand strike a fellow-creature unjustly, though the hand have no will of its own, yet it is considered guilty, not indeed as viewed in itself, but inasmuch as it is united to the rest of the body, and to the soul, forming one human being; and thus sharing in the will of the soul with which it is connected.

In the same manner the sin committed inwardly by the human will, by a bad desire, belongs to the whole human being.

Of original sin, in which we are born, we are not personally guilty with our own personal will, but our nature is guilty by the will of Adam our head, with whom we form one moral body through the human nature which we derive from him.

It is a point of Catholic faith that original sin does not consist in what is called concupiscence, which is a propensity to evil of the inferior part of the human soul.

Sin, to be a sin in the strict sense of the word, must be within the sphere of morality, that is, must depend upon free will; and hence the noted principle in moral philosophy and theology, that there is no sin where there is no will.

Concupiscence, therefore, which is not will, but a blind, involuntary inclination of our lower nature (and therefore an irresponsible tendency to evil), is not of itself sinful unless it be consented to by the will, or rendered strong by bad and unrestricted habit.

Concupiscence is indeed sometimes called sin in Holy Scripture (Romans 7:7; Galatians 5:24), but it is called so as the holy Council of Trent explains, not in a strict, but in a wide sense, that is, inasmuch as it is a consequence of original sin, and an incentive to actual sin.

This concupiscence, or inclination to evil, still remains in those from whom the guilt and stain of original sin has been entirely washed away by the Sacrament of Baptism. Moreover, strictly speaking, no one is regarded as a sinner merely because he feels tempted to sin. This miserable propensity to evil excites the compassion rather than the anger of God; who said to Noah: “I will no more curse the earth for the sake of man; for the imagination and thought of man’s heart are prone to evil from his youth” (Genesis 8:21).

The Catholic Church teaches that Adam by his sin not only caused harm to himself, but to the whole human race; that by it he lost, the supernatural justice and holiness which he received gratuitously from God, and lost it, not only for himself, but also for all of us; and that he, having stained himself with the sin of disobedience, has transmitted not only death and other bodily pains and infirmities to the whole human race, but also sin, which is the death of the soul.
The teaching of the Council of Trent (Session 5) is confirmed by these words of St. Paul: “Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned” (Romans 5:12).

The Royal Psalmist (Psalm 1:7) says: “For behold I was conceived in iniquities and in sins did my mother conceive me.” (In the Hebrew text it ia in the singular, i.e., conceived me in sin.)
Upon this text St. Augustine says: “David was not born in adultery, for he was born from Jesse, a just man, and his wife. Why does he say that he was conceived in iniquity, unless because iniquity is derived from Adam?”

That the early Christians believed in original sin, can be gathered from what St. Augustine said to Pelagius: “I did not invent original sin, which Catholic faith holds from ancient time; but thou, who deniest it, thou without doubt, art a new heretic” (De Nuptiis, Book 11, Chapter 12).

It may be said that this belief is as old as the human race, for traces of this ancient tradition are spread among all nations, insomuch that Voltaire had to confess that “The fall of man is the base of the theology of nearly all ancient people” (Philosophie de l’Histoire, chapitre 17).

Besides the guilt of original sin, which is the habitual state of sinfulness in which we are born (because our human nature is justly considered to have consented in Adam to the rejection of original justice), there is also in man the stain of original sin, entailing in the human soul the privation of that supernatural luster which, had we been born in the state of original justice, we all should have had.

As neither Adam nor any of his offspring could repair the evil done by his sin, we should have always remained in the state of original sin and degradation in which we were born, and have been forever shut out from the beatific vision of God in heaven, had not God, in His infinite mercy, provided for us a Redeemer.

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) – The Vatican’s second-highest ranking doctrinal official on Monday forcefully branded homosexual marriage an evil and denounced abortion and euthanasia as forms of “terrorism with a human face.”

Okay, so where is the controversy? Everyone knows what the Catholic Church thinks about such things, and what is more, it is the objective truth. Any homosexual parody of marriage is a sinful offense to God and a corruption of human dignity. Both abortion and so-called mercy-killing or assisted suicide are forms of murder. We have lost a few thousand troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and several thousand victims from the 9-11 attack. However, abortion alone takes the lives of 4,000 people in the United States every day, as many as a million-and-a half children a year. I would also call that terrorism, and the face is our own.

The attack by Archbishop Angelo Amato, secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was the latest in a string of speeches made by either Pope Benedict or other Vatican officials as Italy considers giving more rights to gays. In an address to chaplains, Amato said newspapers and television bulletins often seemed like “a perverse film about evil.” He denounced “evils that remain almost invisible” because the media presented them as “expression of human progress.”

What the Archbishop means is that it is almost unbelievable that our society could have reached this state of affairs. The accepted values we shared have been placed on their head and those things reckoned as the most sinful and debased are reckoned as rights and practices of a more enlightened, secular people. Natural law becomes, not something objective that can be rationally construed, but merely a capricious mental exercise where if we judge an act acceptable, it becomes so. God is no longer seen as the author of nature and right or wrong; rather, man with his imagination and will becomes fully his own master. This new approach requires a great deal of self-deception and is an escape from any genuine realism. At its heart is a rebellion against the divine and a worship of man, and not any man, but of fallen Adam without recourse to redemption. It may be a type of atheism for certain critics; and yet others, seek dominion over the divine paradigm itself, recasting for themselves a wimpish, tolerant, non-confrontative God who can be redefined whenever necessary to excuse human depravity.

When they want to attack priestly celibacy and chastity in general, these new authorities speak of a Jesus who was secretly married to Mary Magdalene. When they want to discount St. Paul’s admonitions against sodomy, they allude to a homosexual relationship between Jesus and the “beloved” apostle. It does not matter that none of it is true. Truth is relative and models for Christ and our behavior can be adopted brand new or discarded at will.

The Church stands for such people as the ultimate enemy. While doctrine might develop, the deposit of truth is not open to reversal or dismissal. What is right or wrong is not subject to human manipulation or invention. The moral life is for the Christian, something attained by discernment and listening and finally obedience. Divine positive law, the commandments, retain their authority. Natural law is written upon our flesh, and introspection brings us to a quick comprehension.

There is an infinite distance between existence and non-existence. Life is better than death. The marital act is that act which can result in the creation of a new human being. What can possibly compare to the creation of a person with an immortal soul and an eternal destiny?

Jesus asks us to take up our crosses and to follow him. Euthanasia is not the answer. Adding our sufferings to the passion of Christ for the salvation of souls– this is what we are to be about.

He listed these as abortion clinics, which he called “slaughterhouses of human beings,” euthanasia, and “parliaments of so-called civilized nations where laws contrary to the nature of the human being are being promulgated, such as the approval of marriage between people of the same sex …”

I wish all our bishops and priests were just as clear and forceful in speaking on behalf of human life and sexual morality. Often clerics say the right words but are seemingly unwilling to take the hard steps that would back up their statements. In the United States, the matter of giving holy communion to pro-abortion politicians is still a volatile issue. Several years ago this topic was brought before the local Presbyteral Council. We voted on what recourse to recommend to the Cardinal and the vote was 24 to 1. I was the “1” who argued against giving holy communion to the political enablers and supporters for baby-killing. I argued afterwards that I wanted the minutes to show my dissent from their passivity. I said that I did not want to be counted among them when historians looked back to our day and wondered about our hardness of hearts. Further, I argued that if Adolf Hitler and other Nazis, who never personally killed any Jews but set policies and laws in place that caused such a holocaust, came up for communion…would they give it to them? If white supremacists, who never personally killed blacks, but supported with money and politics those who lynched African Americans…would they give them holy communion? What is the difference, I asked? There was only silence. They knew that the only difference was that the unborn were invisible and silent, and given that they were human beings just like the Jews and the blacks, there really was NO DIFFERENCE. When the minutes came out for the meeting, the entire vote and my remarks were expunged like it never happened.

Do not get me wrong, everyone there opposed abortion. The difference was regarding strategy in opposing it. What I sought was judged too extreme. I suppose there was a fear that if we alienated politicians, dialogue would end and they would not be open to assisting us on other matters important to the Catholic community. Maybe they were right? Maybe I am just a hot-headed priest who gets too emotional about such things? Maybe my fault is a lack of patience and not being a good enough team player? I know that I can be crass and crude while other men are diplomatic and polished. “What are we going to do with Father Jenkins?” I know from hearsay, this question has been asked. As one friend said to me, “Joe, don’t you have any ambition? Wouldn’t you like a bigger parish or be a Monsignor like your priest-heroes in the archdiocese?” Why do I say things that can be so upsetting? I am somewhat at a loss to explain. Out of the thousands of priests, only a few even have public blogs. Why do I feel that discussion about such things should be frank and open and honest? I guess that is just me, although I am tiring of debates as the years fly by. While every man will be judged according to his own conscience and his obedience in faith, I know that “for me to be silent” on matters of great importance would invite judgment and maybe perdition.

[It should be added that I regard both professional secrecy and the seal of Confession as cases where a priest must keep an absolute silence, and this means not to reveal anything through either verbal or non-verbal communication. It would be better for God to strike a priest dead before even the revelation of the smallest venial sin.]

My view of the Church is that we should dispel as much ambiguity as possible and speak the truths of Christ without apology or equivocation. I also speak from the heart. Most priests I know are saintly men. All the bishops I have known were truly holy and good. I love them, pray for them daily and obey them (just as I promised at my ordination). I go where I am sent and do what I am told I must do. But there are questions, as with the issue of holy communion and public advocates and politicians in favor of abortion, where I grieve in conscience and cannot resolve a basic contradiction in our practice…one that eats at my soul.

I believe that priests must respect and obey their bishops.

But to this very day, I suffer in conscience about this situation which permeates most of the United States.

I weep while at prayer, and wonder if anyone really cares.

Amato…accused the [secular] media of using language “to hide the tragic reality of the facts.”

“For example, abortion is called ‘voluntary interruption of pregnancy’ and not the killing of a defenseless human being, an abortion clinic is given a harmless, even attractive, name: ‘centre for reproductive health’ and euthanasia is blandly called ‘death with dignity’.”

Ah, talk about shades of 1984 and the double-speak that was used to cover-up the truth about things. Just off the top of my head, and from various discussions over the years, here are a few more samples:

St Blog's Parish Ring

U.S. Coast Guard

ALMIGHTY GOD

"Father Joe's Blog is great fun to read, too bad I will have to strike him dead with lightning some day!"

THE POPE

"Right after evening prayer, I regularly read his Blog and note corrections for my upcoming encyclicals."

PRESIDENT BUSH

"Before I have my security council meeting each morning, I check to see what's new at Fr. Joe's Blog."

SADDAM HUSSEIN

"This infidel priest is not funny and is ill-informed!"

PRIESTESS (SR.) M T KANE

"He is a right-wing bigot who is anti-choice and anti-woman. The goddess is not happy with his Blog!"

HIS MOTHER

"He is the poorest priest I know, always pontificating about things he knows nothing about; he is a disgrace!"

ALIEN COMMANDER

"The invasion is going as planned and soon all the clergy will be pod-people from outer space, starting with Father Joe."

WITCHDOCTOR ZULU

"Never have I met someone who was so opposed to true ecumenism and religious freedom. I would like to sacrifice him in my dinner pot and wear his head as an ornament. Voices like his need to be silenced! We should all pray and sup together."

ADOLF HITLER CLONE

"This priest is wrong in his opposition to giving holy communion to anti-life politicians and other proponents of choice. He is not in sync with the majority of American bishops! How is that orthodox? Does he want an altercation at the altar? Now, where are my gas chambers and firing squads?"